Guidelines on drawing up Islamic wills issued

[Quintium]

Equality before the law. As in, if I can write a will dictating how my property is to be disposed of after I die, then so can my Muslim neighbour, on the same terms. His reasons and motivations are his own business, as mine are my own.

It's not that I want to outlaw that. It's just that I want Europeans to think long and hard about the symbolism, and about what this entails. You'll have people drafting wills based in large part on the principle that women are of less worth than men and are not to be trusted with too much responsibility. It's just sickening to see the people who fought churches to popularise equal treatment of men and women look away in cowardice and feigned chivalry when it's a mosque they're facing.

We are talking about people's right to control their own property. Their reasons for the choices they make about their own property are entirely their own business. We have no thought police in Europe.

And yet:

- Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Governments are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Individuals inviting proposals for contracts are not allowed to discriminate based on sex.

[Ethel mermania]

the demand would not exist if the end customers did not want it.

The end "customers" of the Law Society are its members, the lawyers who will be guided in line with these guidelines. I doubt there are any Muslims in England and Wales who want to write a will but can't.

no, the end customers are the clients wanting this in their will, for reasons of their religion. if there wasnt a growing demand the training would not exist. i agree they should have it, but it is a shame they want it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's their own property, so why not let the muslims decide for it themselves?

I'm all in favour of people being able to discriminate based on race, sex, religion and anything else when it comes to the way in which they maintain and manage their own property. However, what we see here is something symbolical. Yes, I read the source. Yes, I'm aware of the basics of British law. Yes, I know who did this and for which purpose, but it's the symbolism that matters. For the same reason, I oppose the building of mosques or islamic cemeteries in Europe even if they are funded privately (which, often, is not entirely the case). All of these tiny developments, ultimately, are symptoms of the disease of Islam eating away at Europe's identity.

It's almost refreshing that you've gone from attempting to rationalize some rather nasty beliefs to simply owning your bigotry and xenophobia.

Tell me, in this interconnected world, exactly how you are going to stop this from happening short of violence. And who in Europe is publicly funding mosques?

[Quintium]

Tell me, in this interconnected world

And one, might I note, where most countries - even wealthy ones - have been perfectly able to keep immigrants at bay while maintaining a very high standard of living. Interconnectedness is a lazy man's excuse for not justifying his own point of view. No, it is not unavoidable and yes, Europe could keep all new islamic immigrants at bay with the right policy. The political will, and not the practical possibility, is the problem in Europe.

exactly how you are going to stop this from happening short of violence.

Ultimately, it will come to a head. Western Europe will be marked and bloodied by unrest. The first signs are already here (especially England, France, Sweden), and while there won't be a sudden outbreak of violence there will be a spiral that slowly heads down, down, down. There will be more riots, and they will peak between 2030 and 2050. They will be marked not just by looting, vandalism and the occasional use of violence, but by systematic ethnic and religious violence. This situation will be caused by a severe political and economic shift that will hit Europe due to far-reaching changes in demographics.

And even if I wanted to prevent that, I couldn't. No one can prevent this anymore - it's not five to twelve, it's five past twelve. We're beyond the point of no return.
All I can do now is attempt to persuade people to at least stop putting more powder kegs in Fortress Europe's basement.

And who in Europe is publicly funding mosques?

The European Union, at least accidentally, and a local government in the Netherlands intentionally using that money. In Amsterdam, two mosques were built after the local council agreed to "mention only [to the European Union] that these will be multicultural centres, and not that they will serve primarily as houses of prayer." After doing so, the local council received in excess of one million euros, used to build these two mosques.
http://www.groene.nl/artikel/sjoemelen-met-moskeeen

The local government of Strasbourg, France, offered to help fund a mosque, but was rejected because it set the condition that they should preach in French and help stop youth crime in their communities.
http://www.arabnews.com/node/240526

These are two down to earth examples. There's a lot more, probably, especially indirectly (through nationwide mosque councils which receive funding for their 'role in society'), but these are two examples of public bodies in Europe offering to fund the construction of mosques.

[Viritica]

Fine, British citizens (or immigrants to Britain).

That's not the topic of this thread.

Do you want to know what happened? No laws were changed, no laws were enacted, nothing whatsoever changed in Britain. The point of the thread is to discuss a voluntary guideline crested by a non-governmental agency, and it's objective was essentially guidelines on Islamic wills and inheritances.

Nothing changed whatsoever, and discussing Islamic immigration in Britain is not the point of this thread. You say you're libertarian, but you sound more and more like a far-right nationalist every time I see you post.

I'm not, but okay. You're open to your ridiculous and just plain stupid interpretation of shit.

I just find these "guidelines" to be racist, sexist, and just plain stupid. Good job integrating people, Britain. *slow clap*

[Tekania]

Personally, I think we should not pander to this demand in any way.
If they want to award women half of what they award men in wills, they can do it in their own countries.

They could do it already, this is just guidelines for solicitors to better aid them in their job to their clients.

[Risottia]

...

Sharia principles are to become enshrined in the UK legal system for the first time, with The Law Society publishing guidelines for drawing up documents according to Islamic rules, which would exclude non-believers and encroach on women’s rights.

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Tell me, in this interconnected world

And one, might I note, where most countries - even wealthy ones - have been perfectly able to keep immigrants at bay while maintaining a very high standard of living. Interconnectedness is a lazy man's excuse for not justifying his own point of view. No, it is not unavoidable and yes, Europe could keep all new islamic immigrants at bay with the right policy. The political will, and not the practical possibility, is the problem in Europe.

Which wealthy Western nations have been able to do this?

exactly how you are going to stop this from happening short of violence.

Ultimately, it will come to a head. Western Europe will be marked and bloodied by unrest. The first signs are already here (especially England, France, Sweden), and while there won't be a sudden outbreak of violence there will be a spiral that slowly heads down, down, down. There will be more riots, and they will peak between 2030 and 2050. They will be marked not just by looting, vandalism and the occasional use of violence, but by systematic ethnic and religious violence. This situation will be caused by a severe political and economic shift that will hit Europe due to far-reaching changes in demographics.

And even if I wanted to prevent that, I couldn't. No one can prevent this anymore - it's not five to twelve, it's five past twelve. We're beyond the point of no return.
All I can do now is attempt to persuade people to at least stop putting more powder kegs in Fortress Europe's basement.

You seem quite certain regarding the details of this. Tell me, from where did you get your crystal ball?

And who in Europe is publicly funding mosques?

The European Union, at least accidentally, and a local government in the Netherlands intentionally using that money. In Amsterdam, two mosques were built after the local council agreed to "mention only [to the European Union] that these will be multicultural centres, and not that they will serve primarily as houses of prayer." After doing so, the local council received in excess of one million euros, used to build these two mosques.
http://www.groene.nl/artikel/sjoemelen-met-moskeeen

I don't read Dutch. Please provide a source in English so that I'm better able to determine the context and veracity of this claim.

The local government of Strasbourg, France, offered to help fund a mosque, but was rejected because it set the condition that they should preach in French and help stop youth crime in their communities.
http://www.arabnews.com/node/240526

That's hilarious. It was essentially a clumsy attempt by local authorities to get them to start preaching a "French Islam" and stop preaching in Arabic. It's like telling a Rabbi to stop using Hebrew during services. What a horrible attempt to bribe a people into changing the underlying underpinnings of their religion.

These are two down to earth examples. There's a lot more, probably, especially indirectly (through nationwide mosque councils which receive funding for their 'role in society'), but these are two examples of public bodies in Europe offering to fund the construction of mosques.

One example that I wasn't able to read, and another of a government trying to use building subsidies to get a people to change how they go about their services. Fascinating. You're right, Sharia law must be the next step.

[Gravlen]

...

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

No, it won't. See, me deciding that you should not get my stuff after I die, and that Ifreann should get everything does not violate your human rights in any way. I'm free to bequeath my property to any (legal) person for any reason. In fact, I don't even have to state what my motivations are. You are not entitled to my property upon my death regardless.

In fact, interference in these matters may be a violation of the right to property as enshrined in article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Of course, if you didn't read past the misleading... wait, let's not be coy: The utterly false claim that "Sharia principles are to become enshrined in the UK legal system", you might have missed the part about how the law - the Wills Act of 1837 - is not being changed, and how the guidelines are simply there to make life easier for the people drawing up wills in line with English law.

[Volnotova]

It has no place there. Britain for the British.

Indeed, we must respect native culture.

Britain for the Celts.

[Ifreann]

Equality before the law. As in, if I can write a will dictating how my property is to be disposed of after I die, then so can my Muslim neighbour, on the same terms. His reasons and motivations are his own business, as mine are my own.

It's not that I want to outlaw that. It's just that I want Europeans to think long and hard about the symbolism, and about what this entails. You'll have people drafting wills based in large part on the principle that women are of less worth than men and are not to be trusted with too much responsibility.

As we have had for as long as we have had wills. All that is being symbolised is that Muslims have the same rights as everyone else in England and Wales, which is really not new information.

It's just sickening to see the people who fought churches to popularise equal treatment of men and women look away in cowardice and feigned chivalry when it's a mosque they're facing.

You're surprised that people who support equal treatment for all people don't want to treat Muslims differently from everyone else in an effort to drive them out of Europe?

We are talking about people's right to control their own property. Their reasons for the choices they make about their own property are entirely their own business. We have no thought police in Europe.

And yet:

- Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Governments are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Individuals inviting proposals for contracts are not allowed to discriminate based on sex.

Fancy that, we treat businesses, contracts, and governments differently from wills. Because those are different things.

---

The end "customers" of the Law Society are its members, the lawyers who will be guided in line with these guidelines. I doubt there are any Muslims in England and Wales who want to write a will but can't.

no, the end customers are the clients wanting this in their will, for reasons of their religion. if there wasnt a growing demand the training would not exist. i agree they should have it, but it is a shame they want it.

It's a shame that lawyers are taking on Muslims as clients and want guidelines on how best to serve their needs wrt wills?

---

...

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

Sorry, is it illegal to leave more to a man than a woman in one's will? Or to name only people of a particular faith?

[Ifreann]

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

No, it won't. See, me deciding that you should not get my stuff after I die, and that Ifreann should get everything..

Haha, take that, Riso, I get the penguin's chainsaw!

[Ethel mermania]

It's not that I want to outlaw that. It's just that I want Europeans to think long and hard about the symbolism, and about what this entails. You'll have people drafting wills based in large part on the principle that women are of less worth than men and are not to be trusted with too much responsibility.

As we have had for as long as we have had wills. All that is being symbolised is that Muslims have the same rights as everyone else in England and Wales, which is really not new information.

It's just sickening to see the people who fought churches to popularise equal treatment of men and women look away in cowardice and feigned chivalry when it's a mosque they're facing.

You're surprised that people who support equal treatment for all people don't want to treat Muslims differently from everyone else in an effort to drive them out of Europe?

And yet:

- Businesses are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Governments are not allowed to discriminate based on sex;
- Individuals inviting proposals for contracts are not allowed to discriminate based on sex.

Fancy that, we treat businesses, contracts, and governments differently from wills. Because those are different things.

---

no, the end customers are the clients wanting this in their will, for reasons of their religion. if there wasnt a growing demand the training would not exist. i agree they should have it, but it is a shame they want it.

It's a shame that lawyers are taking on Muslims as clients and want guidelines on how best to serve their needs wrt wills?

its a shame someone would want to leave their daughter half of what they would leave their son because the girl has a vagina.

[Ifreann]

As we have had for as long as we have had wills. All that is being symbolised is that Muslims have the same rights as everyone else in England and Wales, which is really not new information.

You're surprised that people who support equal treatment for all people don't want to treat Muslims differently from everyone else in an effort to drive them out of Europe?



Fancy that, we treat businesses, contracts, and governments differently from wills. Because those are different things.

---

It's a shame that lawyers are taking on Muslims as clients and want guidelines on how best to serve their needs wrt wills?

its a shame someone would want to leave their daughter half of what they would leave their son because the girl has a vagina.

True enough.

[Nervium]

So, basically this law gives the right to Muslims to put up their own will.
And basically, the reaction, as expected; "Waaaaahh ebil Moozlems tekin evur teh world!!1!"

[Gravlen]

Tell me, in this interconnected world

And one, might I note, where most countries - even wealthy ones - have been perfectly able to keep immigrants at bay while maintaining a very high standard of living. Interconnectedness is a lazy man's excuse for not justifying his own point of view. No, it is not unavoidable and yes, Europe could keep all new islamic immigrants at bay with the right policy. The political will, and not the practical possibility, is the problem in Europe.

exactly how you are going to stop this from happening short of violence.

Ultimately, it will come to a head. Western Europe will be marked and bloodied by unrest. The first signs are already here (especially England, France, Sweden), and while there won't be a sudden outbreak of violence there will be a spiral that slowly heads down, down, down. There will be more riots, and they will peak between 2030 and 2050.

Or perhaps... 2083?

They will be marked not just by looting, vandalism and the occasional use of violence, but by systematic ethnic and religious violence. This situation will be caused by a severe political and economic shift that will hit Europe due to far-reaching changes in demographics.

And even if I wanted to prevent that, I couldn't. No one can prevent this anymore - it's not five to twelve, it's five past twelve. We're beyond the point of no return.
All I can do now is attempt to persuade people to at least stop putting more powder kegs in Fortress Europe's basement.

So you really are claiming that informing muslims about their rights under existing laws will lead to the violent downfall of Europe. Oy vey...

[Tekania]

So, basically this law gives the right to Muslims to put up their own will.
And basically, the reaction, as expected; "Waaaaahh ebil Moozlems tekin evur teh world!!1!"

Well, this is not a law..... it's guidelines by a non-governmental association for solicitors. Other than that... yes, that pretty much is it.

[Levd]

I have serious problems with a society saying it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sex because of such an arbitrary notion as property rights; at the same time, I have no idea how this situation could be prevented without completely outlawing inheritance in general.

[Nervium]

So, basically this law gives the right to Muslims to put up their own will.
And basically, the reaction, as expected; "Waaaaahh ebil Moozlems tekin evur teh world!!1!"

Well, this is not a law..... it's guidelines by a non-governmental association for solicitors. Other than that... yes, that pretty much is it.

Okay guidelines... So an individual muslim can choose not to follow it. Big deal either way.
It's sad that it's sexist, but then again, realistically, sexism will alway persist in a patriachical society.

[Tekania]

I have serious problems with a society saying it's okay to discriminate on the basis of sex because of such an arbitrary notion as property rights; at the same time, I have no idea how this situation could be prevented without completely outlawing inheritance in general.

That's pretty much it... inheritance for the most part IS discriminatory by virtue of its existence. It defines who and where your estate is to be distributed to after death based upon your own particular views.

[Quintium]

Which wealthy Western nations have been able to do this?

All wealthy western nations that have not caught the bug of normative multiculturalism after 1968 - that is, those that are Asian or those that were behind the Iron Curtain in the late 1960s. Former Soviet states can count themselves lucky - their governments may have been corrupt, bloated, violent and inefficient, but at least they didn't invite half of the third world over for tea. If you include nations with a westernised way of life and a western standard of living, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are some very important examples that come to mind.

Wealth does not immediately make immigration unavoidable. As I said, the only reason we're now overrun with non-western immigrants is because our politicians lacked the will or courage to do something about it. Practically, we could have held out forever even if we lived in golden houses with chocolate fountains and cookies growing from trees while the rest of the world was starving.

You seem quite certain regarding the details of this. Tell me, from where did you get your crystal ball?

From years and years of thought, reflection, study of history, observations in modern-day society and - most importantly - statistics. What we'll see in the coming decades is that the native populations in Europe will plummet, especially the productive segments of the native populations, and non-western immigrants will become a politically important but economically dependent group with interests and values that differ dramatically from those of the native population. These people exist in societies within our societies, in their own enclaves, and as the welfare state dries up across Western Europe and resources become more difficult to obtain, there will be large-scale unrest. That's when it'll come to fighting, and by my best estimate that'll start between 2030 and 2050.

It's sad that it's sexist, but then again, realistically, sexism will alway persist in a patriachical society.

And all islamic societies are essentially patriarchal, and Muslims in Europe are usually still part of their own societies before anything else. I'm glad you seem to accept that premise. Now please, draw the same conclusion and state that Europe should stop receiving Muslims before they become even more of a demographic and political force.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

People should be able to write up their wills however they wish.

[Quintium]

Or perhaps... 2083?

Anders Behring Breivik is a naive narcissistic fool. And comparing me to him, rather than pointing out what you think is wrong, is a very weak move on your part.
Be a man, point out what you think is wrong with what I'm saying and explain why you think I'm wrong. Be productive, not destructive.

So you really are claiming that informing muslims about their rights under existing laws will lead to the violent downfall of Europe. Oy vey...

We're not on /pol/ here, so hold your horses. You're attempting to make a caricature of what I'm saying here, but I think you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying this is a symptom. This is the runny nose, but not the cold. This is the fever, not the flu. This is one tiny facet of a system of values and normative rules brought to Europe by Muslims. As an Arabist here once remarked: just when we're done fighting the Catholic Church for equal rights and religious tolerance, along comes something which is ten times worse.

[Murbleflip]

...

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

You know the Law Society isn't a government institution, let alone one that can change what the law says? And why would any true Briton complain about a document such as a will, the authority of said document enshrined in law since 1066? You know everyone in Britain has always been able to write into their will that their daughters get no inheritance, and this document simply is a set of guidelines on how to do that, right?

[Tekania]

Wat. Kill the Law Society with fire.

Anyway, luckily Britain is a CoE country (for now, until the Kippers and Cameron have their way and leave it just like Belarus), so any legal discrimination about faith and gender/sex will be declared as void as soon as any British citizens takes a complaint about such an inheritance document to the Strasbourg Court.

You know the Law Society isn't a government institution, let alone one that can change what the law says? And why would any true Briton complain about a document such as a will, the authority of said document enshrined in law since 1066? You know everyone in Britain has always been able to write into their will that their daughters get no inheritance, and this document simply is a set of guidelines on how to do that, right?

Indeed, there are valid legal grounds for invaliding a will..... but "the guy was a biased prick who didn't like me" was never one of 'em.